IDEA Identification Rates
Children are underidentified.
Students with mental and emotional disorders (termed "emotionally
disturbed" under the IDEA12) have been
cited as among the most under-identified and underserved students with
disabilities.13 For more than two decades,
the national rate of students identified with emotional disturbance hovered
just under 1 percent;14 by 2001 it had fallen
to 0.74 percent. In stark contrast, the U.S. Surgeon General estimated
that nationwide 5 percent of all school-age children have mental disorders
with "extreme functional impairment"15
and 11 percent have mental disorders with "significant functional
impairment." This
chart presents data on this gap, comparing the percentage of children
identified as emotionally disturbed in schools with children estimated
to have mental disorders accompanied by extreme or significant functional
impairment. State-by-state data are presented in Table
1.
The low overall rate of identification under the IDEA hides the fact
that some states identify almost no children as having mental or emotional
disorders. Rates of identification have consistently varied considerably
by state.16 State identification rates are
also shown in Table 2.
Since 1991, children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADD/ADHD),
have been eligible for inclusion within the "other health impaired"
category of the IDEA. Since then there has been a 350-percent increase
in the number of students in this category, attributed by the Department
of Education largely but not exclusively to the inclusion of children
with ADD/ADHD. However, the overall rate of identification for Other Health
Impairments is low, and in some states it is zero.17
Even if all the children who cause such an increased number in this category
were those with ADD/ADHD, they would not raise the rate of identification
for children with mental and emotional disorders significantly.18
Based on earlier and less well researched estimates that only 2 to 3
percent of school-age children had mental or emotional disorders serious
enough to adversely affect their educational performance,19
schools were criticized for failing to identify and assist even half the
children with emotional disturbance who should have qualified under the
IDEA.20 Today the data suggest that states
may be failing to correctly identify four fifths of qualified children.
A number of reasons have been put forward for this gap, including:
- The federal definition—due to its vague language, undefined terms
and inappropriate criteria—allows significant under-identification
of children with emotional disturbance.21
- Children with mental and emotional disorders, as a group, often exhibit
behaviors that disrupt the classroom and make them unpopular; schools
would rather remove them than offer them services.22
- Schools assume that the costs of providing services will be high and
that if the child is not identified for special education and related
services under the IDEA, the mental health system will nonetheless provide
the necessary services and supports.23
- School officials are concerned about the impact of a "mental
health" label for the child, due to the stigma of mental or emotional
disorders.24
Children are misidentified.
The problem of under-identification is probably even worse than the above
figures seem to indicate because large numbers of children are misidentified.
Research now indicates that schools misidentify almost as many children
with mental and emotional disorders as they identify accurately.25
One study found that nearly half of a group of children with mental and
emotional disorders were identified by schools as learning disabled, even
though the study carefully excluded any children with co-occurring learning
disabilities.26 The authors of this study point
out that this misidentification likely leads to provision of services
and supports that are misdirected and less helpful than if the child were
correctly identified.
Even including misidentified children within the group of children with
emotional disturbance identified under the IDEA for special education
does not raise the identification rate to a level consistent with the
findings on the increased number of school-age children with mental disorders.
Doubling the identification rate as suggested by the above-mentioned study
would only lead to identification of 1.5 percent of school-age children
with mental disorders.
Identification is often delayed.
Even when schools correctly identify students as having mental or
emotional disorders, the identification is typically delayed. Children
in this category are identified at a mean age of 10, and many not until
adolescence.27 Effective prevention of school
failure depends crucially on early recognition and provision of services
for troubled children. Delayed identification results in children's requiring
more intensive IDEA services once they are identified. For example, these
children are disproportionately placed in the most restrictive settings
and are far less often mainstreamed than children with other disabilities.28
Early identification is not difficult. Although these children are not
being identified by their schools, parents and professionals recognize
mental and emotional disorders in children at a very young age—often
well before the child even starts school.29
Ethnic and cultural factors influence children's identification.
Furthermore, there is considerable agreement that differential treatment
of minority children has been a problem in special education since enactment
of the federal law.30 Regardless of the effects
of social, demographic and school-related factors, gender and ethnicity
are significantly associated with the risk of being identified for special
education. This is particularly the case for the special education categories
of mental retardation and emotional disturbance. African American and
American Indian children, particularly boys, are over-represented in the
category of emotional disturbance, while Asian/Pacific Islander and Hispanic
children are under-represented.31 A significant
portion of this over- and under-representation appears to be a function
of inappropriate interpretation of ethnic and cultural differences.32
|
